I think all agree that Sheffield are not ready for SL at this time. However, how some SL diehards on here can write them off as never being capable of entering and competing in SL, seems perverse to me

Many are the arguments and postings on here about the impossibility of small towns such as Keighley, Featherstone Leigh and the cumbrian clubs being able to generate attendances large enough for SL due to not ever having a large enough catchment area or population to achieve this.

I don't dismiss any club as not being able to make it in SL, what I do dismiss is people who fantasise about clubs playing in stadia that at max can hold 6k, have no history of achieving great crowds and have no big financial backer, thinking that promotion is the answer to all their problems, or even worse still believing that the opportunity for automatic promotion is the answer to all their problems.

Any club is capable of hacking it in SL, all they need is money, and LOTS and LOTS of it. That loadsa money has to be spent on making sure facilities are up to scratch and then paying SL wages, where the money comes from is irrelevant, but no club is going nowhere fast without a lot of it.

Going bust in 1972 is a lot different to going bust 40 years later in 2012. In 1972 you may have owed the local chippie a few fish suppers, or the local brewery for a few barrells of awful beer. These days the figure are massive and not easily recoverable, see Bradfords problems, and they have been lucky.

These days investors risks are higher and the return is still the same, zero. That fact makes it less likely for major investors to step in except for the larger clubs, the others have to rely on building a realistic fan base to pay the bills.

Its a tough, money driven game we are in, and a lot of clubs (especially supporters) need to wake up to this.

I don't "object" to Sheffield. I merely point out Sheffield have few fans. Time and time again I have said that if you don't have the fanbase to financially support a professional club then you can use a rich directors money to make up that "income".

Mr. Hughes makes up that income. Therefore his club are in SL. Mr. Hughes's club also run an academy and it produces professional RL players. Therefore London can pay full cap, and produce their own players as well as most.

Sheffield cannot pay full cap or anywhere near and it doesn't produce it's own quality professional players.

If it did the such as Wakefield or Fartown would step in and buy them leaving Sheffield with the catch 22 of not being able to hang onto players and therefore not be able to attract fans who want to see their club compete.

It's the simplest of realities, yet you talk about Sheffield building towards being "ready" for Superleague.

If you think they can do this please set out the logic. It's time you explained how these things work because you are constantly sniping and telling me I am wrong. So please type something of your own to show how Sheffield will build towards Superleague.

I think all agree that Sheffield are not ready for SL at this time. However, how some SL diehards on here can write them off as never being capable of entering and competing in SL, seems perverse to me

Sheffield should be just as high on the SL agenda for a future licence as Toulouse.

Well you have heard what Padge has to say.

Unlike Solly you draw the comparison with Toulouse.

The SLE chairmen at the top have been to see Toulouse and it seems they can offer a lot of financial backers at the directors table, they can offer big local sponsors and the city council are also interested. They also speak of their inclusion in SL providing the chance of a TV deal.

In short they offer big money. Sheffield offer no money. The press release by their director said nothing about Sheffield having any money.

Now you want to talk about "perverse diehards" which is not the point. The point is "Eagles for SL?"

Please set out how you believe Sheffield can grow towards being "ready" for Superleague taking into account the licensing requirements. You are probably close enough to your club to understand how recruitment works, how junior development works, what costs are incurred ruunning pro-clubs, how fan base support is grown etc.

I don't "object" to Sheffield. I merely point out Sheffield have few fans. Time and time again I have said that if you don't have the fanbase to financially support a professional club then you can use a rich directors money to make up that "income".

Mr. Hughes makes up that income. Therefore his club are in SL. Mr. Hughes's club also run an academy and it produces professional RL players. Therefore London can pay full cap, and produce their own players as well as most.

Sheffield cannot pay full cap or anywhere near and it doesn't produce it's own quality professional players.

If it did the such as Wakefield or Fartown would step in and buy them leaving Sheffield with the catch 22 of not being able to hang onto players and therefore not be able to attract fans who want to see their club compete.

It's the simplest of realities, yet you talk about Sheffield building towards being "ready" for Superleague.

If you think they can do this please set out the logic. It's time you explained how these things work because you are constantly sniping and telling me I am wrong. So please type something of your own to show how Sheffield will build towards Superleague.

I''ll give it a fair hearing.

You seem to be confusing me with the CEO of Sheffield Eagles. I will not be the one who draws up the business plan to take them into SL.

Clearly they need a backer but you argue that this ain't going to happen as Sheffield is a soccer city with little interest in RL and yet Hughes performs this role in London, a city not known for love of TGG and the much maligned Salford isn't particularly RL friendly either.

Sheffield could potentially bring a lot to SL and have made great strides in the last ten years. Despite your previous arguments that "you can't build outside SL", they are a much better position to bid for a SL spot today than they would have been in 2002. Let's just wish them well and hope that this continues rather than writing them off as wannabes.

2. So that's your plan for them to get in SL is it?. They get a rich backer to put £2M a year into the club ad infinitum. Is that all you've got?

3. No I argue it's unlikely to happen, very unlikely.

4. Any big city could potentially bring a lot to SL London certainly do don't you think?

5. OK I wish every RL club in the land well.

Now how do you think Sheffield can grow as a club and get ready for Superleague if not 2015, then 2018?

Re point #2. Yes, that is all they need. Everything else follows on from that. That's the point you are making re Toulouse. They have the money. They, like Sheffield, do not tick the box re attendances nor, according to the club, will when they are in SL. They are projecting for 5 to 7,000, not the break even point of 10,000. Yes, it's all about the money.They do not tick the box on juniors either. Sheffield are running junior and reserve teams up to a SL level now. Their products will not be picked off by other SL clubs if they have the money.

Less you forget, they have been there and done that in SL and the 1st division before. They got into trouble, as did Huddersfeild, who are still in SL by the way, and were merged.

Now, London, Hull, Bradford and Wakefield ( twice) have been given a second go but Sheffield are being dismissed as no hopers. Your hypocrisy and double standards know no bounds when you pick sides in an argument and defend it at all costs. The only difference between Sheffield and the clubs I have listed plus Toulouse is the financing. Everybody supporting Sheffield for SL has stipulated that they need proper financing before they can be considered.

2. So that's your plan for them to get in SL is it?. They get a rich backer to put £2M a year into the club ad infinitum. Is that all you've got?

3. No I argue it's unlikely to happen, very unlikely.

4. Any big city could potentially bring a lot to SL London certainly do don't you think?

5. OK I wish every RL club in the land well.

Now how do you think Sheffield can grow as a club and get ready for Superleague if not 2015, then 2018?

No, I don't think London brings much to SL. They had the potential to do so and may have in fact done so in the early days of the comp but right now they don't. At best they are an academy side feeding the M62 sides with players that would probably have been missed. The club has no ability or perhaps even ambition than to prop up the bottom of the table.

Sheffield might flop but then again they might not. It is a big city and RL doesn't have many big cities, aside from Sheffield only Gateshead and York offer much in terms of large cities that aren't already represented in SL (and Toulouse but that's another issue).

It might not be that likely but what we need is a lot of Sheffield / Gateshead / York sides in the semi-pro ranks and more divisions than we have at present. If we had twenty such sides then some would come good. The RFL is finally doing the right thing by welcoming in Hemel / Coventry / Oxford / Gloucester even if they don't seem to be going about it in the right way.

Re point #2. Yes, that is all they need. Everything else follows on from that. That's the point you are making re Toulouse. They have the money. They, like Sheffield, do not tick the box re attendances nor, according to the club, will when they are in SL. They are projecting for 5 to 7,000, not the break even point of 10,000. Yes, it's all about the money.They do not tick the box on juniors either. Sheffield are running junior and reserve teams up to a SL level now. Their products will not be picked off by other SL clubs if they have the money.

Less you forget, they have been there and done that in SL and the 1st division before. They got into trouble, as did Huddersfeild, who are still in SL by the way, and were merged.

Now, London, Hull, Bradford and Wakefield ( twice) have been given a second go but Sheffield are being dismissed as no hopers. Your hypocrisy and double standards know no bounds when you pick sides in an argument and defend it at all costs. The only difference between Sheffield and the clubs I have listed plus Toulouse is the financing. Everybody supporting Sheffield for SL has stipulated that they need proper financing before they can be considered.

Reading through all fallacious arguing tactics, it appears the only points being brought to the table is that Sheffield don't have the backers or the youth yet.

In his opinion, he thinks they are unlikely to get a backer. This is based on them being in a soccer city with little RL heritage it seems. The counter to this is that so is London, yet they've managed to find at least four separate backers in the SL era (Brisbane Broncos, Virgin, Hughes and Lenagan). Their are backers out there. They can and do turn up. Considering how well the club has been run, I'm pretty confident they can find the extra backing in the near future to push on.

As for players, they have the structures in place. Eventually this will bare fruit. It's difficult without being able to put them in a full time environment.

No, I don't think London brings much to SL. They had the potential to do so and may have in fact done so in the early days of the comp but right now they don't. At best they are an academy side feeding the M62 sides with players that would probably have been missed. The club has no ability or perhaps even ambition than to prop up the bottom of the table.

Sheffield might flop but then again they might not. It is a big city and RL doesn't have many big cities, aside from Sheffield only Gateshead and York offer much in terms of large cities that aren't already represented in SL (and Toulouse but that's another issue).

It might not be that likely but what we need is a lot of Sheffield / Gateshead / York sides in the semi-pro ranks and more divisions than we have at present. If we had twenty such sides then some would come good. The RFL is finally doing the right thing by welcoming in Hemel / Coventry / Oxford / Gloucester even if they don't seem to be going about it in the right way.

Re point #2. Yes, that is all they need. Everything else follows on from that. That's the point you are making re Toulouse. They have the money. They, like Sheffield, do not tick the box re attendances nor, according to the club, will when they are in SL. They are projecting for 5 to 7,000, not the break even point of 10,000. Yes, it's all about the money.They do not tick the box on juniors either. Sheffield are running junior and reserve teams up to a SL level now. Their products will not be picked off by other SL clubs if they have the money.

It's about money for everyone of course so base your argument on that, and you can argue Bristol can become an SL side if they have money and Wigan can wither to nothing if they don't. Simplistic tosh.

The fact remains Sheffield have no money. Their director wants the RFL to pay for marketing the club to get their attendances up. He made no mention of any investment at all so back to the OP rather than people's silly obsessions and it remains the case that "Eagles for SL"?????

Few fans, no pro players produced, and no money = no chance.

The only clubs that get the big backers are the big traditional names. Places where you don't have to put vast quantities of money in.

Even Branson Lenegan and Brisbane pulled out of London knowing the scale of investment needed, Hughes does put loads in, but he has had to go crying to the RFL for help, and is threatening to pack it in.

Toulouse have money but as they have said (and as you and your ilk want to ignore) they are set to get it from such as TV deals, large business sponsorships, local government support, and yes 5-7000 fans to start with (Eagles ended on 3,600 fans). There is no "big backer" at Toulouse is there??

Can sheffield help get a better TV deal?? NoCan sheffield get big local business deals?? NoCan sheffield get Sheffield city council money?? No

Probably because there's no history/legacy of RL in the city unlike Toulose

So look at the facts not the dreams and fantasies, and try to just accept reality, that way we can progress the debate.

It's about money for everyone of course so base your argument on that, and you can argue Bristol can become an SL side if they have money and Wigan can wither to nothing if they don't. Simplistic tosh.

The fact remains Sheffield have no money. Their director wants the RFL to pay for marketing the club to get their attendances up. He made no mention of any investment at all so back to the OP rather than people's silly obsessions and it remains the case that "Eagles for SL"?????

Few fans, no pro players produced, and no money = no chance.

The only clubs that get the big backers are the big traditional names. Places where you don't have to put vast quantities of money in.

Even Branson Lenegan and Brisbane pulled out of London knowing the scale of investment needed, Hughes does put loads in, but he has had to go crying to the RFL for help, and is threatening to pack it in.

Toulouse have money but as they have said (and as you and your ilk want to ignore) they are set to get it from such as TV deals, large business sponsorships, local government support, and yes 5-7000 fans to start with (Eagles ended on 3,600 fans). There is no "big backer" at Toulouse is there??

Can sheffield help get a better TV deal?? NoCan sheffield get big local business deals?? NoCan sheffield get Sheffield city council money?? No

Probably because there's no history/legacy of RL in the city unlike Toulose

So look at the facts not the dreams and fantasies, and try to just accept reality, that way we can progress the debate.

The City of Sheffield is just about to launch it's own TV station, this if used correctly could be a vehicle to gain a major sponsor on board and to say they have not produced any Professional players is not totally true if you count the guys they have taken from the amateur game (I think 3 have actually gone on to play for GB)

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

The City of Sheffield is just about to launch it's own TV station, this if used correctly could be a vehicle to gain a major sponsor on board and to say they have not produced any Professional players is not totally true if you count the guys they have taken from the amateur game (I think 3 have actually gone on to play for GB)

Who knows. Your post said "None of those cities except Gateshead have RL sides". You didnt mention SL, applying SL, just that there were no RL sides, which there are.

Given the number of posts I've made in the community section, you can take it as read that I know about Liverpool Bucaneers (RIP), Liverpool City, Mancunians RL, Nottingham Outlaws, Edinburgh Eagles, Bristol Sonics etc.